For the same reason as last time you asked. Why do you want it to lock... And Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. They choose to go with the feeling and sometimes act really gay. Like if a transsexual desides to go around in ladies cloth. Or nothing like it. Very few homosexuals actually act steriotypical for someone gay.
Religious based:Just plain wrong because God says so Homofriendly:They are just normal people that were made that way
There are more groups, but they are already summed up by yours truely. Anyway, I would think we are pass the religious and meaningless mudthrowing, and have now moved into the healthy discussion area again. Theories and thoughs are exchanged without anger.
When this thread loses interest in the public eye we will let it drift back down the list. But while people post on it there's no reason to lock it.
The only other reason to lock it would be if it becomes the site of intolerable flaming and spamming. Then we'll go right ahead and unlock it once that has been dealt with!
I think that not allowing people to love each other is horrible. What if you weren't allowed to marry the person you love? It is absolutely rediculous to be against someone because of who they love. What if suddenly there was a huge movement against people who love dogs? It is the same thing, and intolerance of it is ignorant and preposterous.
I think that not allowing people to love each other is horrible. What if you weren't allowed to marry the person you love? It is absolutely rediculous to be against someone because of who they love. What if suddenly there was a huge movement against people who love dogs? It is the same thing, and intolerance of it is ignorant and preposterous.
Careful with that statement, fergman~ Comparing those two kinds of love is not necessarily the best way to go about this subject... But I agree with you.
Being a more conservative person myself, I should say," homosexuality is bad, blah blah blah."
But I disagree. I am mostly conservative, but I am for homosexuality. I also think that it isn't fair that one person can't be married to a person they love. Love conquers all, baby!
I don't think that's what he meant, Zophia, but rather people who like dogs as pets. In other news, though still directed at Zophia, I've been reading this sense about 170.
What if suddenly there was a huge movement against people who love dogs? It is the same thing, and intolerance of it is ignorant and preposterous.
Zophia:
Careful with that statement, fergman~ Comparing those two kinds of love is not necessarily the best way to go about this subject...[/quote]
Windshift:
I really do hope that isn't in a sexual way...[/quote]
Xzeno:
I don't think that's what he meant, Zophia, but rather people who like dogs as pets.[/quote]
I think that demonstrates what Zophia meant perfectly because while Xzeno is probably right (and Windshift can breathe a sigh of relief), one does not, as has been discussed in a separate thread, necessarily have to mean an entirely platonic love when referring to anything, including dogs. In fact this example is slightly ironic because by and large, public sentiment towards "loving your dog" (in the zoophilic sense) is generally negative! And moreover if taking fergman at face value he did make a direct comparison between loving your dog and loving another person...
There shouldn't be a debate on this subject. Period. Because being homosexual is, in all entirety, a life-style. This life-style has nothing to do with others lives other than the fact that the 'gays' are there! I don't get people who are against gays. If they are allowed to be happy, why can't homosexuals?
Are you sure about that Strop? I mean, because someone is against homosexuality doesn't make them unhappy. Unless they are a strong believer in heterogeneous marriages, and are anti-gay, why can't they be happy?
